KUOW diversity? where are the republicans?

It was a refreshing deviation (god, we love deviation) from the usual sweet puddin' of lofty arcana on KUOW's Weekday (m-f, 9-11a) Friday.

Hosted by Marcie Sillman (filling in for Steve Scher) Friday's show had a couple of newcomers to the media panel who comment on the week's news every Friday at 10: Naomi Ishisaka, editor of ColorsNW Magazine; and D. Parvaz, columnist and editorial writer for the Seattle P-I.

(Known on BlatherWatch as the Cardigan Hour for its amiable but bland predictablity, regulars are Crosscut columnist Knute "Skip" Berger, and Seattle Times pundit Danny Westneat with occasional fill-ins by such as Eli Sanders and Erica Barnett of The Stranger. The segment is in flux at the moment: P-I columnist Susan Paynter has retired, which has lowered the futz-factor slightly, but left an opening).

Though we rarely miss it, we've always complained of the tediousness of the hour; but this week, the two new women really spruced up the conversation. Presumably the show is casting around for a new member to replace Paynter- either of these would certainly more than suffice.

(Dorothy Parvaz is one of our favorite local writers- she's funny, and has written many original and sometimes risky stories at the P-I such as when she (a native Iranian) walked around town- just a month after 9-11- in an Islamic hijaab- a full-body head scarf- inspiring one guy in her neighborhood to lovingly try to shove her into oncoming traffic).

KUOW is always striving for diversity, it seems, and to achieve that worthy ideal, they're always up for adding another gender, race, or ethnic flavor. Good on 'em for that- Ishisaka, and Parvaz are diverse in one or more of those ways from certified white men Danny and Knute- and pithy to boot. We say hire 'em both!

But the diversity we'd really love to hear is diversity of opinion- not just one of the white guys being cranky. We know it's hard, but can't they find a conservative to provide real opposition? We realize they won't be finding a gay, black Republican anytime soon, but the predictable and amicable consensus and bloodless agreements to disagreements we're getting aren't only unrepresentative of the listenership, but really boring radio.

It's certainly comfortable for KUOW to color inside the lines of what they perceive to be the community political consensus, but how about giving more than just high-minded verbage to diversity and small L liberalism?

Is it about not disagreeing with, or challenging the subscriber base who so generously supports the station? We hope not, but if that's the case, it's intellectually dishonest; not truly serving listeners; and no different than commercial talk radio's corporate decisions not to stray from conservative talk because it's a known entity that sells. What happened to the high-minded notion that public radio serves the public good and somehow flies above tawdry market-driven fray?

(No wonder Seattleites were so stunned after the 2004 election: living in the bubble kept inflated in part by such as KUOW, even after all those years of Republican realignment, we had no idea who these people were who'd just wrested control of the national power structure so handily).

When the Friday group talks about Republicans, it's like anthropologists discussing Hutus. We know, Skip and Danny have their contrarian streaks, and definitely aren't doctrinaire liberals, but the lack of the tension of real debate, and the few voices of true opposition buttresses the meme the right has implanted: public radio is a liberal circle jerk.

We don't really agree with that, but about that hour on KUOW- they're correct.

Comments

[joanie]

Hmm . . . I hardly listen to KUOW anymore. I really don't have the time to listen during the day. (I've started podcasting Dave Ross almost nightly.)

I do think it would be interesting to have more mixed guesting. Instead of one guest representing the liberal side or the conservative side, have them appear together and let listeners hear for themselves the differences. That would be honest radio. Also, I think better listening.

Not sure why NPR is considered liberal? I still think of it as more middle of the road. Denying opportunities for whacked-out conservativism is just good judgment to me. I don't hear anybody on the far whacked-out left on NPR either.

Seems to me, NPR/KUOW pretty much gives voice to those who have credibility because they represent their areas of expertise. Let's not give more credit to this group of "entertainment conservatives" that seems to be the model for current talk radio on the right now than they deserve.

Having said that, I do agree more diversity in gender and ethnicity is due. Hmm, I don't think KUOW needs to work on left-right diversity as much as gender and ethnic diversity. Totally agree there. They've been white male way too long. I think PBS is as well. Except for "To the Contrary" which I don't care for much, cooking shows are the only ones more equally represented by men and women. Even those are all or mostly white - and I think mostly male.

Funny, isn't it?

[Ann Boleyn]

I guess I agree about"entertainment conservatives" but I sure am sick of the self-congratulatory, male dominated show Bl'am is talking about. Even Susan Paynter was a guy and a liberal. If you get out of Seattle, it just isn't reality. Most programming on KUOW is not political, that is good, but in the small amount they have, can't we have some real debate?

[mack]

Give me a break. The whole damn thing is all liberal all day. It disgusts me that one penny of my tax dollars go into this propaganda.

[joanie]

Mack, you're entitled to your opinion but I want to know what's so liberal about it?

And "headless" Ann, I agree about the lack of debate and lack of diversity.

[joanie]

Ann: t I sure am sick of the self-congratulatory, male dominated show Bl'am is talking about.

Michael: But the diversity we'd really love to see is diversity of opinion- not just one of the white guys being cranky. We know it's hard, but can't they find a conservative...

Please, Michael, not the "entertainment conservatives" currently in vogue.

[Ann Boleyn]

My point is same as Bl'am's, is diversity only about race and gender or is it about ideas, too?

[Andrew]

KUOW was most obviously liberal during the 2004 elections. There was a Kerry good news Bush bad news trend that actualy made me laugh out loud in it's blatantness at times. "Bush is facing harsh criticism over ... meanwhile John Kerry will be in Seattle to stump for his campaing(!)"

As KUOW politics is now it's unlistenable, "it's like waching flies fuck" a wise man once said, but if they dropped in a knee jerk water-carrying conservative you'd have Crossfire, which John Stewart accurately called "theater" because it's like my talking points versus your talking points and nobody is more credible than the other, and both sides seem valid in the end even though one or both of them are not.

I think the only way to avoid that is to have centrists who put intelectual honesty ahead of political gamesmenship so the debating. The decided partisans will dishonestly defend something they know to be wrong if winning will advance their party and ideology.

[joanie]

Whose centrism, Andrew? I think KUOW is centrist. Maybe more diversity will help clarify and define that "centrism" for me and for all of us. You all seem so sure of what stands for "liberalism" these days. I sure don't anymore.

I am for a greater emphasis on "socialism" but I'm not a socialist.

I think the extreme right propaganda has altered the landscape for liberal/conservative philosophies considerably. I think many liberals have lost an understanding of what they really stand for and where it lies on the political spectrum. You've let the right redefine you. Sad.

[joanie]

BTW, Andrew, what was the "good news" about Bush in 2004? From an objective rather than liberal point of view? I'm curious.

[Andrew]

Well the divisions between conservative are liberals are clearly enough defined. I don't think conservatives have boxed us in as much as you think.

Conservatives:

pro upper-class

pro greed

hate non-Christians

hate the environment

hate the poor

xenophobic

jingoistic

Liberals:

pro working class

pro health care

pro freedom & religious tolerance

pro foreign relations

pro oppurtunity

I feel comfortable with the line as it has been drawn.

[Andrew]

It wasn't that there was any good news for Bush as much as some of the bad news they reported seemed extra trivial at times, like they intentionaly pulled it from the bottom of the pile, while mentioning things about Kerry that seemed barely news worthy. Obviously I don't have transcripts but I'm not alone in my observations.

[joanie]

I wonder if conservatives agree with your list, Andrew. I think "liberal" list is used to be centrist. Tolerance? Isn't that the principle on which America was founded?

I can't think of anyone who isn't pro healthcare. It is how healthcare is distributed that is at the center of the debate.

Your delineation prives my point. Many of your "liberal" examples used to be "centrist" and simply put "American" values. Wasn't the EPA started under Nixon? Didn't Nixon open the door to our relations with China?

You see how much the right has redefined itself and us?

[joanie]

You say you don't have transcripts but I would think you'd remember at least one example if in fact that happened often.

I can't agree. Again, the right has vilified us and we are accepting their villification. Repeat the message often enough and even the victims begin to believe it.

[PugetSound]

andrew
why would conservatives not like freedom? or opportunity?

freedom and opportunity are the things that republicans run on.

just curious. you must have some people that you know and respect that differ with you on politics. is that true of them?

[Andrew]

I remeber laughing about it but I don't remember the exact content. The human brain isn't perfect. Sorry.

[joanie]

Andrew, you haven't addressed my examples. Why do you think your list is comprised of "liberal" rather than "centrist" ideas?

Why would conservatives not like freedom and opportunity?

We don't know, putsie. Why don't they? So far, all they've done is limit both. FISA, union busting, outsourcing, affirmative action, "no-fly" list for people without good reason, caging, fraudulent mailings pre-elections.

Please, tell us why you all want to limit freedom and opportunity for Americans?

[PugetSound]

joanie
"Please, tell us why you all want to limit freedom and opportunity for Americans?"

cite where i have advocated the above.
then we can discuss.

[PugetSound]

joanie
when you look at bush as opposed to a FDR or Lincoln he pales in comparison in regards to limiting constitutional freedoms during a time of war.
care to debate? i'll be back in a few hours.

[joanie]

So you disagree with FISA, Reagan's union busting, Walmart's policy of firing union agitators, Bush's policy of outsourcing, redoing the no-fly list, disagree with Rove's caging activities, and think the Republicans mailing of false information pre-2004 in Ohio and elsewhere was wrong?

On the record: yes or no?

Sorry, putsie, this isn't World War II. In fact, it isn't even a declared war. You should know that. And since I don't regard it as a legitimate war, we have no common ground on which to debate.

FDR and Lincoln? Each did what they thought they needed to do in response to an imminent threat to the American people. Iraq was no such threat as has been shown over and over . . . And, for the record, I don't agree with everything FDR did regarding the Japanese. You see, liberals don't see everything as either/or . . . that's a conservative thing. "baa, baaa . . . "

Unless, of course, you'd like to prove that Iraq was an iminent threat? Perhaps you have evidence otherwise?

And, no, I don't care to debate with you anymore because it is a futile expedition into frustration for anyone who tries. Been there and done that.

I, too, am leaving now. Andrew, I'm interested in what you have to say.

[Andrew]

I say conservatives hate freedom primarily because they legislate based on religion and rabid nationalism without thinking twice, and outlaw behaviors that are totaly private and have no relation to public health.

They feel free, but the rest of us have our liberties treated like garbage. They tell woman they must carry their fetuses to term. They tell gays they can't marry, and even try to amend the constitution to that effect, which is the ultimate insult to gays and the constitution. They waste valuable time banning flag burning and disrespect the tax dollar by giving breaks to religious organizations.

There best comeback: America is still the greatest country on earth.

[KS]

Bl'am has a point, but doubt if many of you would be happy if those evil conservatives were able to get in their licks, even if it would make for better radio. Certain people sound like (as Larry Elder would call them) Victo-crats. Polarization will be the downfall of this great nation - when great civilizations have crumbled, it has invariably began from within.

Can anyone name an innocent citizen who was adversely affected by the Patriot Act ?
(This is not as easy of a question as you'd like to believe)

[Andrew]

I blame the polorization on Bush and the conservatives. Courting the Crazy Christians in 2000, the freedom fries embarrasment, Cheney's statement that America would be attacked if Kerry was elected, the with us or against us talk, the overuse of the "9-11 taugh us..." line, and the attitude that dissent is un-American.

And then you the Hannities and Coulters saying liberals "hate America first", that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Conservatives have been carpet bombing the middle ground ever since the Clinton impeachment.

Why should I know someone who was adversely affected by the Patriot Act? If I don't know anybody then does that mean nobody was affected?

[KS]

"And then you the Hannities and Coulters saying liberals "hate America first", that liberalism is a mental disorder."

Hannity and Coulter do not represent moderates - they are over the top when they say that stuff. On the other hand, extreme liberalism can be proven to be a mental disorder (case and point - Cindy Sheehan, San Francisco politics and moveon.org). Extreme conservativism is as well (David Duke, skinheads and neo-cons - although they are more schizoid)

"Conservatives have been carpet bombing the middle ground ever since the Clinton impeachment."

And the liberals have been totally innocent, have done nothing to incite that and have successfully practiced martyrdom all during that time. If you are going to promote that, you are intellectually dishonest.

We need a president in '08 that will decrease the polarization if this country is to survive, not someone like the Clintons who will ramp up polarization with their devisiveness. Gore, Obama, McCain, or Guilliani would be a step in the right direction.

[PugetSound]

joanie
pulling the old skeddaddle out of the playbook.
you don't disappoint, that's for sure. for the record, your comment "I don't agree with everything FDR did regarding the Japanese." should actually read you don't agree with what FDR did to AMERICAN citizens. as American as you or I.
key point: American Citizens who were deprived of their rights/property and shipped to detention camps for the duration.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was pushed beyond its emergency justification to include defiance of the Supreme Court; censorship to include closing the press cannot really be defended; and improper use of military trials.
Reagan's union busting. ironically, patco was about the only union that supported reagan in the 1980 election. but he made it clear that jobs of vital interest can't strike. similar to truman and the coal miners strike break up in the late 40's.
some jobs are vital to the national interest and can only be solved via binding arbitration. he warned them not to strike and they went ahead and did it. gorby later cited this event as one of the reasons he knew that reagan was a serious person.

you may not like it, but facts are stubborn things. the iraq war is lawful. it was voted for overwhelmingly by both Dems and Repubs. i guess you must have missed the newspaper that day. so both parties have their hands in it. inconvenient, eh? go ahead bury your head in the sand. its also very real to those fighting it.

the litany of walmart, nafta, et al. many of those things came about during a dem administration by a presidential family that had mrs. clinton on the board of walmart for many years. she only left when she became first lady. evidently she had no problems with it. and that nutjob, rosie o'donnel for years hawked walmart products. she has no problem with 'em.

[PugetSound]

andrew
why would conservatives not like freedom? or opportunity?

just curious. you must have some people that you know and respect that differ with you on politics. is that true of them?

[KS]

"Why should I know someone who was adversely affected by the Patriot Act? If I don't know anybody then does that mean nobody was affected?"

My point was if you believe that the Patriot Act endangers our freedoms, then prove it, otherwise there is no basis for saying it - as those on the left so often do. More specifically, Bush was wrong on the NSA wire taps by not securing a court order first- his excuse was indefensible, but the Patriot Act has worked to protect us - one thing that Bush did that had a net positive effect.

[KS]

"Why should I know someone who was adversely affected by the Patriot Act? If I don't know anybody then does that mean nobody was affected?"

My point was if you believe that the Patriot Act endangers our freedoms, then prove it, otherwise there is no basis for saying it - as those on the left so often do. More specifically, Bush was wrong on the NSA wire taps by not securing a court order first- his excuse was indefensible, but the Patriot Act has worked to protect us - one thing that Bush did that had a net positive effect.

[PugetSound]

ks sez:
"We need a president in '08 that will decrease the polarization if this country is to survive, not someone like the Clintons who will ramp up polarization with their devisiveness"

sign me up for some of that although i would add that rove et al played a good part in polarization. a pox on all of them.

[PugetSound]

ks
isn't it true that when the patriot act came up for renewal, many of those that originally voted for it the first time and then played politics afterwards didn't do much more than play around at the margins with the renewal?

[Andrew]

KS says "Hannity and Coulter do not represent moderates - they are over the top when they say that stuff. On the other hand, extreme liberalism can be proven to be a mental disorder (case and point - Cindy Sheehan, San Francisco politics and moveon.org)."

The liberal equivelents of Coulter and Hannity are nowhere near as popular or profitable. Conservatives eat up what they're cooking by the bucketfull.

"And the liberals have been totally innocent, have done nothing to incite that and have successfully practiced martyrdom all during that time. If you are going to promote that, you are intellectually dishonest. "

Dems were out of power that entire time and still are thanks to Bush's liberal use of the line item veto, so this is largely irrelevant.

"We need a president in '08 that will decrease the polarization if this country is to survive, not someone like the Clintons who will ramp up polarization with their devisiveness. Gore, Obama, McCain, or Guilliani would be a step in the right direction."

First, the ironic thing is Dems love McCain (Keryy/McCain dream team?) and Guliani (former New York mayor with a good sense of humor).

Second, Hillary is famed for reaching across the isle. I believe she is our best bet. She made the mistake of voting for the war, but so did most Americans in 2004, and she's a woman. Her time has come, and I bet Obama will be her running mate if not "Runner Up" Edwards.

[Andrew]

The Patriot Act is clumsy is all. Aparently it was intended to be used against terrorists but the wild majority of the time it's used against non-terrorists.

I'm also not happy that it's called the "Patriot" Act. It's a misnomer and vilifies its critics. One of the first things the Dems did when they took over in '06 was require propper naming of legislation. God forbid the Republicans get their shit together.

[PugetSound]

andrew
i have to agree with your points on 'conservative' candidates especially that play to the evengelical conservatives.
being an atheist, i can't stand religion being interjected in politics, resent the tax breaks given to the faux preachers on tv with their rolex watches, and believe that gays should be given equal rights to include marriage.

now where i like traditional conservatism is the out of my wallet/out of my bedroom just leave me alone aspect.

regarding the usa patriot act and naming etc it is interesting because someone actually spent time to come up with the acronym in naming the usa patriot act. its full name:
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

[holodeck]

POll

LIberal> progressive> moderate> what will the next name change be?

[sarge]

conservative,neocon, reactionary, assholes, pricks, what will the next name change be?

[wutitiz]

The history of these labels is interesting. Early in the 20th century lefties like Eugene Debs openly called themselves socialists. Later, socialism lost popularity and by the 60's the preferred term was 'liberal,' which appealed to hippies and other freedom lovers. By the 1980's the 'L' word was in disfavor. When Goldy boldly declares himself 'proudly liberal,' it's implicit that 'liberal' has become a dirty word. As 'liberal' fell from favor, 'progressive' was repopularized.
The same thing may be happening now to "conservative," IMO because so many politicians who campaign as conservatives refuse to govern as conservatives.
All this is an illustration of how language has a huge impact on public opinion in and of itself. The politico who has language on his side will often as not beat the one who has facts on his side.

[Andrew]

What's more is people of the conservative/regressive persuasion seem more suggestive to simple-minded labeling. They say the Republican strategists are masters with words and labeling, but how likely is that realy, that they happen to be a bunch of geniuses? More likely the conservative minded people they play to are gullible, and latch on to thick-headed summations such as "cut'n'runners', 'tax'n'spenders', 'limousine liberals', 'flip-floppers', and on and on.

[joanie]

KS: Victo-crats. Polarization will be the downfall of this great nation - when great civilizations have crumbled, it has invariably began from within.

Klueless, you are the perfect example of what you condemn. You've got a denigrating name for everyone and then blame "polarization" for the downfall of civilizations.

Thank you for a good laugh.

Can anyone name an innocent citizen who was adversely affected by the Patriot Act ?
(This is not as easy of a question as you'd like to believe)

We finally agree. This is not an easy question at all. Mostly because I am unable at first sight to determine innocence. For me, it takes something called "due process."

Thanks for another laugh.

Well, putsie, I see you totally dismissed my points and started on your usual wayward journey into ambiguity. Have a good trip. Your examples are not analogous.

Another good laugh.

Right on, Sarge! Add profiteers and greedy hatemongers to that list.

My, wutitis, in true conservative style, you find it easy to eliminate complexity. For those who wish to read about the various forms of socialism and communism, a primer might be Wikipedia

It's a good place to start anyway.

And, yes, hate language is always more influential than truth. Your example above (socialist becoming liberal) sort of proves your point. Something about conservatives that way . . . too bad isn't it?

[joanie]

Mostly because I am unable at first sight to determine innocence.

Sorry, Klueless, that should read:

Mostly because I am unable at first sight to determine guilt.

[holodeck]

Look up neocon in a real dictionary - not wikipedia

[PugetSound]

after reading the 1:37 am post above, at this point, can anyone take joanie seriously?
the best part is that after the 1:37 am GEM she comes back and having reread her posts decides to repost a correction at 2:09 am.
joanie, not to worry. at this point we know your posting out your tailpipe and it really doesn't matter. even with the correction your post had little connection with reality.
your starting to kill this website.

[PugetSound]

"All this is an illustration of how language has a huge impact on public opinion in and of itself. The politico who has language on his side will often as not beat the one who has facts on his side.

Posted by: wutitiz | September 08, 2007 at 10:16 PM"

spot on wutitiz. don't forget broad terms like 'hate speech' or PC in general.
actually, we see some wannabe types here on the board. for example, when joanie is unable to refute a poster she likes to label it as 'bullying' which is joanie-speak for can't debate.
you ask joanie to define exactly what she means by 'bullying' and she skedaddles away. another favorite technique.
sparky likes to throw out the troll word a little too easily.

[PugetSound]

"All this is an illustration of how language has a huge impact on public opinion in and of itself. The politico who has language on his side will often as not beat the one who has facts on his side.

Posted by: wutitiz | September 08, 2007 at 10:16 PM"

spot on wutitiz. don't forget broad terms like 'hate speech' or PC in general.
actually, we see some wannabe types here on the board. for example, when joanie is unable to refute a poster she likes to label it as 'bullying' which is joanie-speak for can't debate.
you ask joanie to define exactly what she means by 'bullying' and she skedaddles away. another favorite technique.
sparky likes to throw out the troll word a little too easily.

[maggie]

this might just be a private conversation, but I'd like to comment. I love diversity of ideas (and get plent on NPR) but spare my public radio of the kind of trashtalk that keeps the right wingers busy on the commercial stations. That kind of radio has helped downgrade if not ruin the political dialog in this country, and I'm hoping that KUOW can keep free from that loud and bitter microwave debate. If you can find a conservative who can debate in a reasoned manner, fine, but that may take some doing judging from the conversation here.

[David Tatelman]

Frankly I am not interested in having conservatives around anymore and I couldn't give a rats ass what they have to say. They have worn out their welcome in my book and as far as I am concerned they are totally discredited. In the 6 years they ran this country, look at what they did. I say send them all back to Nazi Germany.

[pugetsound' mother]

Puget? is that you? I'm worried about your obsession over the women in here. Didn't that date from the halfway house work out?

[Andrew]

The definition of conservativism seems to change all the time. Now it means grid lock, the status quo, kickbacks for donors and occasional and spontaneous deregulation, vaporizing freedom, playing fast and loose with the constitution, neglect and dismantling of succesful social programs, broken promises, gay lawmakers oposed to gay rights. I must admit, conservatives have lost credibility for years to come.

[rev]

If you're seriously concerned about KUOW and its possible bias, you should consider attending the public meetings of the KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio board of directors (http://www.kuow.org/about/board.asp), rather than simply complaining about it in this blog.

There was a meeting yesterday, and another is scheduled for November 8.

Recreational typing is one thing; speaking truth to power is quite another.

[wutitiz]

PugetSound: I think you're onto something re 'bullying.' It may be the new 'abbacdabra' word for the left. I have been going back & forth at the jesurgislac blog about Sharkansky (still!) I asked J what exactly what Sharkansky had done that was 'bullying' and he couldn't even bring himself to answer. Just asking the question put me 'beneath contempt.' "I hate a bully," he concluded, and I guess any further discussion is precluded.

[sparky]

Hopefully, so.

[wutitiz]

Sparky: no doubt.